Q: Can you tell us approximately how old this document is and
how long it has been in effect?

A: Almost two months.

Q: So it's a quite recent publication, is that correct, or policy?

A: Yes. It was adopted, if my memory serves me correct, on October
13th.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, that concludes my interrogation of Mr.
Bullington. Pursuant to an agreement which we have reached with counsel
for the State, they have asked and we have agreed to defer his cross examination
until after the direct examination of Ms. Marianne Wilson, if that is satisfactory
with the Court.

Q: And are you responsible for performing all of the duties and
responsibilities that are enumerated under the responsibility section of
that document?

A: Yes, I am.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer Number 34.

THE COURT: Okay, sir.

MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: Can you give me some brief notion, since we've already put
your job description in evidence, of the broad areas of responsibility
which you exercise?

A: All kinds of problems in the classroom. I help evaluate materials
— materials meaning textbooks, media that are used in the classroom — assist
the teacher in any kind of problems they have as far as correlation of
materials, material content, supplemental materials, problems with students,
student-teacher relationships and student-parent relationships, administrative
procedures as far as evaluating.

Q: You evaluate the actual classroom science teacher?

A: I can if called, if asked to.

Q: Can you tell me something about the administrative hierarchy
above you? That is, to whom do you report and to whom do those individuals
report?

A: I report to Mr. Gene Jones who is responsible for secondary
instructions, 7 through 12. He, in turn,

Q: Was evolution considered— I mean, was evolution present, at
least, in all of the biology textbooks that you reviewed?

A: Yes.

Q: Tell me a little bit about Pulaski County itself, the size
of the district?

A: The size in terms of the number of pupils?

Q: Please.

A: Approximately thirty-one hundred plus.

Q: Thirty-one hundred or—

A: I mean thousand. Excuse me.

Q: And, indeed, is that the largest school district in the State
of Arkansas?

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately how many teachers do you have that are certified
in science in grades 7 through 9?

A: Fifty-three.

Q: And do you know of your own knowledge approximately how many
are in grades 10 through 12?

A: Close to the same number. Some of them overlap in that if we
have a 7 through 12, school we might have a seventh grade teacher that
also teaches tenth grade biology. So a few of those would be one and the
same person.

Q: All right. And these teachers are all teachers whose certification
by the State of Arkansas entitles them to teach in the area of the sciences,
is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you have to be certified separately for chemistry or
biology or physics?

A: Yes.

Q: With regard to elementary teachers, do elementary teachers
have to be separately certified in science?

A: No.

Q: What is their certification?

A: They just certify in elementary education, broad gambit.

Q: Can you tell me something about the range of experience and
knowledge about scientific matters that you find even in those teachers
who have science certifications?

A: We have people that have physical education degrees that because
they took courses such as kinesiology they meet certification requirements
in the State of Arkansas. Also, teachers in home economics because of different
courses that they have taken meet science certification all the way up
to people that have M.S.E. degrees in

A: (Continuing) biology or M.S.E., Master of Science in Education,
degrees in physics, and even advanced work in some of those fields. So
we have a very broad range of teacher training.

Q: Does that make a difference in how the curriculum coordinator
has to operate and the problems that you face?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: Can you tell me something about that?

A: Well, some people, for example, a home ec teacher might be
weak in the field of physics. And as far as, you know, having to get all
the basic information or just understand some of the concepts in physics
itself to teach the junior high students, so they certainly need more help
than the person who has a Master's in physical science teaching, say, an
eight grade student, who has a very good working knowledge of the subject
area.

Q: Let's, then, pay particular attention to the junior high school
level. And can you tell me, please, the progression of science subjects
as they are taught in the junior high schools, and describe for me in a
very brief manner the kinds of subjects that are included each year?

A: In the seventh grade science classes, we emphasize life science,
zoology and botany. In the eighth grade science classes, it's physical
science which deals in the 25

A: (Continuing) fields of physics and chemistry. And in the ninth
grade science classes, it is termed general science, but we have tried
to make an emphasis on earth science. And then we try to introduce the
field of biology in the last nine weeks of school because that's the next
subject that they are going to in the tenth grade, and we want them to
have a basis before they get there.

Q: Let me hand you a document which I have marked for purposes
of identification as Plaintiffs' Number 26 and ask you if you can identify
Number 26?

A: It is a chapter out of our Focus on Life Science text
which we use in the seventh grade dealing— Well, the chapter is entitled,
"The Theory of Evolution."

Q: And do you actually cover all of that material in the seventh
grade? Not necessarily every word, but do you cover the chapter on evolution
in the seventh grade?

A: Yes.

Q: And is that part of your core curriculum?

A: Yes.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, we would offer Number 26?

THE COURT: It will be received.

MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

Q: Before we go any further, let's talk about the curriculum.
Let me hand you a document which I have

Q: Now, with particular reference to Number 27, I'd like for you
to amplify for the Court, if you would, with regard to the structure of
this document, and pay particular attention to some of these units at the
back? Including oceanography, meteorology, geology, and how those came
to be in the curriculum?

A: Well, we develop the unit. And by "well, I mean myself along
with seventh, eighth and ninth grade teachers. We took our three books
that we had adopted and kind of fixed in our minds, we isolated them from
ever having science before in the elementary school and never getting science
again after they left the ninth grade. And we wanted to try to give them
as broad and comprehensive a scope in science as we possibly could. So
we set out our three books and saw areas that they overlapped, and, you
know, tried to decide—

A: (Continuing) For example, in the seventh grade textbook, they
have a chapter on chemistry that deals with the atom. We also have those
chapters dealing with chemistry in the eighth grade, so we saw no need
in wasting time covering that chapter in the seventh grade since they were
going to get it in the eighth grade. So we went through and kind of weeded
out, you know, and pinpointed certain areas in instruction. Then we looked
at the particular area to see if there was any weaknesses.

Q: Now, when you say "well, were you yourself involved in this
process?

A: Yes.

Q: And is this document, Number 27, a product of your work as
well as the work of your fellow teachers in the Pulaski County Special
School District?

A: Yes. In fact, it has my name in the front.

Q: All right.

A: Okay. We looked at areas to see if everything was—for the weak
areas. And for example, in the area of earth science, which we wanted particular
emphasis on, one of the reasons being, usually a student had to have only
one credit when they went to the high school, which was usually the biological
science, so we definitely wanted them to have some knowledge of earth science.

A: (Continuing) So we beefed up, so to speak, the units of earth
science in that we wrote supplemental units or resource units in the fields
of, in this particular case, astronomy, geology, oceanography and meteorology.

Q: Tell me the process by which you developed those units? Where
you looked for the materials, the kind of materials you included and so
forth?

A: We looked for materials just about anywhere and everywhere
we possibly could. As far as libraries, I usually have lists of references
for that particular subject as far as content and then, too, for media
because when you develop a resource unit, that means you don't have the
material in a text. That's just by the lecture method, which is a poor
method for junior high students to get turned on to. You have to present
different types of media to explain the specific points, especially in
science you need some type of bringing it more down to their level. So
first of all, we wrote our objective, what was our objective for a particular
unit. Then we wrote the topics that we wanted to cover and developed specific
objectives for each topic. And then we pretty well made out an outline
of content. We took the topics and broke them down as far as what exact
items would fall into the

A: (Continuing) content. And then we wrote activities up that
would demonstrate that topic . And then we wrote up vocabulary lists that
the students would need, a working vocabulary, in order to understand,
say, oceanography. Then we compiled a resource list that was anywhere from
books in which you could find supplemental information, a film strip that
would support that topic or bring it more to life, transparencies, slides,
if there weren't any films, if there were any, pamphlets that you could
write off to. We would, you, know, try to use like the weather bureau or
Washington D.C. has a lot of free material that we can utilize in the classroom.

Q: Is cost a consideration when you do all this?

A: Oh, most definitely.

Q: Okay. And in all of these areas, does your school district
already have materials that are on the approved instructional aids and
auxiliaries that are approved by the state for which you can get supplemented
income in its catalogue of materials? That is, do you already have all
of this stuff in your library of materials?

A: Do we already have all the stuff that's on the state textbook
list?

Q: And how does a teacher go about getting that material if a
teacher doesn't have it in the school?

A: Well, if it's something that we list— We specify if the document
is free. And if it is, the teacher writes to the address that we have provided
for them and request X number of copies — Sometimes they will just give
you one — to use in her classroom. Or usually the teacher will go to the
media director, also known as the librarian, to purchase film strips. We
usually can never purchase a film because of the cost.

Q: Were you able for every single one of those units to find materials
from regular science publishers and find materials in the literature in
libraries in both your school library and public libraries

A: Yes.

Q: And did all of those meet the criteria that you have — we'll
get to in a minute what those criteria are — that you have for scientific
materials and materials done in a scientific method?

A: Yes. In fact, we didn't include them if we hadn't already looked
at them.

Q: How are texts selected for the school district in grades 7
through 9? We've had, some discussion about it, but we haven't had any
complete analysis of the actual

A: All right. In 7 through 9, in particular, we have a junior
high committee which is composed of seventh, eighth and ninth grade teachers.
Then on the high school level if you are choosing a textbook for physics
or for chemistry, a specific subject, there is a committee of physics teachers.
Being more specific, the teachers are asked to serve on the committee.
Sometimes for various reasons some teachers just literally don't want to
be away from their classroom three or four times to serve on a committee
or don't have the time for various reasons to be, you know, have time to
go through all the texts and give them an adequate evaluation. But they
are asked, and for the most part, they usually do serve on the committee.
And the committee meets several times. We meet initially to establish our
purpose and, you know, tell what's going to go on and get everybody's address
right because then they are mailed all of the textbooks from the state
textbook approved list because that's the only list we can use state monies
to buy from. And we meet back again, usually for kind of a general discussion.
Well, you know, do we want physical science in the eighth grade or do we
want geology in the eighth

A: (Continuing) grade or do we want life science. We kind of come
to a general consensus of what is going to be seventh, what's going to
be eighth. And that's usually kind of set for us because a lot of times
the publishers already have life science as seventh grade, like that. So
we don't have a big decision there to make. And then more time is given
to evaluate the textbooks. We kind of do a weeding down process and narrow
them down to three books, sometimes two. Then those two books are taken
back And the teachers that represent their school, they go then to the
teachers in their school and let them have an opportunity. You know, like
if there is a seventh grade teacher representing 7 through 9, if they are
going to make a decision for those people, they like to have their input.
And we battle it out and get one book.

Q: Is it possible for a student to complete the ninth grade with
one of these general science courses and not have to take another science
again by the time that student graduates from high school?

A: The requirements of our school district is they have two science
credits.

A: No. It's grades 9 through 12. They only start getting credit
in the ninth grade.

Q: And they have to take one credit in the ninth grade, earth
science?

A: That is a generally accepted rule that they have two science
credits, one being in biology. It does not say specifically that that student
has to take ninth grade science, but they always do.

Q: Does one of the credits have to be in biology?

A: I believe so. One of the credits is in biological science.

Q: Do all of the biology textbooks in your district deal with
evolution and the theory of evolution?

A: Pardon.

Q: Do all of the biology texts in your school district deal with
evolution?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it possible, indeed, to teach biology without teaching the
theory of evolution?

A: Not in my opinion.

Q: There has been some reference here to a resolution by the Pulaski
County Special School District regarding the teaching of creation science.
Can you tell me when you first learned about such an effort?

A: Because I was visiting a school in which Mr. Fisher taught,
Mr. Larry Fisher. And in talking to him in the office, he gave me a document
and said, `I'm going to send this to the school board members and try to
get on the agenda and get a proposal made in January.'

Q: Did he show you the proposal?

A: He showed me the proposal, and I briefly looked at it and gave
it back to him, didn't think anything more about it, really.

Q: What is the next thing you heard about it?

A: He got on the agenda, and the school board passed a mandate
that we were to incorporate a unit on creationism in our science class.

Q: Were you ever consulted by the board before that unit was,
before that resolution of the school district?

A: No.

Q: Tell me then what is the next thing that you knew about or
heard about in connection with the creation science unit?

A: I believe it was the day after the school board meeting, they
called us in and said we were going to have to get a committee together.
And since part of my job

A: (Continuing) description is to help in curriculum writing,
I would be part of the committee. And we were going to have to come up
with a curriculum to meet the requirements of the school board. And I said,
`Could I see the proposal', and I read it.

Q: And what was your view after you read it?

A: Well, my view is that Mr. Fisher has the right to do that,
by all means. I didn't know what scientific creationism was. I'd never
come across it in my training as a science teacher. I didn't know what
it was.

Q: Did you make some attempt—

A: In reading the points about the flood, since the only time
I'd ever heard of a worldwide flood was in the book of Genesis, I kind
of raised my eyebrows to it.

Q: Did you have any further discussions with him or with anyone
else regarding this matter before the committee was appointed?

A: Mr. Fisher?

Q: Yes.

A: Before the committee actually first met, I think I probably
asked him what was scientific creationism, and he gave me a general description.
And he more or less said, `Did you see where I got it passed', kind of
deal. Not any detailed discussion about it, no.

Q: And Mr. Wood has already testified about that. And did you
serve on that committee?

A: Yes.

Q: Mr. Wood also testified that he reported back as spokesperson
for that committee to the school district. And can you tell me what the
reaction of the school district was and then what your involvement immediately
after that became?

A: I attended the meeting, the school board meeting in which Mr.
Wood presented the opinion of the committee. And my perception was that
the school board said, `We didn't ask for your opinion; we asked you to
write a curriculum. You didn't do what we told you to do. You know, go
back, get busy.'

Q: What was your next involvement?

A: So right after the school board meeting, my boss, Mr. Dean
Jones, called me in and said, `Get busy.' It was pointless to utilize the
whole committee probably through monetary reasons. We couldn't release
that many teachers to work as long as it did take us to work. You know,
pay substitutes and whatever. You know, it just wouldn't be feasible to
do that, plus the committee was opposed, too,

A: (Continuing) that this was just not valid science, and we were
asking them to do something that they did not believe in, which causes
some difficulty in itself.

Q: Were you opposed, also, or were you in favor?

A: I was not in favor. I still wanted to know what creationism
was exactly. I had an open mind about it. I guess I thought if I sat quietly
enough, it would slide under the door and nobody would notice. But anyway,
partly because of my job position, I was asked to write the curriculum.
It was myself and Mr. Fisher and then Mr. Jones would also, and he was
on the original committee, too. We would be the three people involved in
completing the task. Mr. Fisher, because he proposed it and because he
did have in his possession all of the materials that, or the only materials
that we knew of at the time.

Q: Can you tell me approximately when you began working with Mr.
Fisher and the mechanism that you set up by which you first began to undertake
the development of this curriculum?

A: Well, the proposal was made at the January board meeting. We
met a two times. We reported to the February board meeting. So we started
work in late February. The first thing I did was to ask Mr. Fisher— I sat
down with him. You know, I wanted him to go over just exactly what

A: (Continuing) this was. I couldn't exactly accept it just because
he said what scientific creationism was. You know, it was just kind of
`so what.' So I asked him to give me some books. I myself on the committee
had not taken a book and reviewed it and reported to the committee. By
the time it got around to me, the books were all taken. That was the reason
I didn't get a book. So I took some books and began reading.

Q: Do you recall the books that you did take?

A:The Genesis Flood, Evolution: The Fossils Say No.
There was a book, Origins: Two Model Approach. I would, like, take
a book and take it back to him, and he'd give me another book.

Q: Do you recall approximately how many you read through this
process?

A: Through the entire process of developing the unit?

Q: Yes.

A: And read in its entirety?

Q: Well, at least excerpts from?

A: Fifteen to twenty books.

Q: Have you told us now—

A: From Mr. Fisher.

Q: Right. And did you read books and investigate other materials
other than those that he gave you?

Q: All right. We'll get to that in just a minute. Tell us now about the
timing and the mechanism. After receiving this first group of books, what
did you do?

A: Well, it was obvious to me because of the subject matter that it dealt
with, and too, Because then the legislature passed a bill which was the
same thing.

Q: Are you talking about Act 590?

A: Act 590.

Q: All right.

A: Because of the fact that it dealt, and it dealt in geology, it dealt
in chemistry, physics, biology, I felt like we really needed experts in
those particular fields. And in the meantime, too, Mr. Fisher and I were,
like, writing an introduction to our unit, trying to come up with an introduction.
We were trying to come up with an outline. Then when the bill passed, you
know, the outline fell in our lap. So we got an outline.

I contacted biology professors for their help, could they, you know,
tell me some sources to go to to expedite the matter because Mr. Jones
was prodding me, you know, `Let's get this done', and kept saying, `Well,
we are going to present it to the April board meeting.' You know, just
keeping me going. So I was trying to find ways to expedite writing the
unit using legitimate sources.

A: (Continuing) We took the bill and made an outline, a major outline
using the bill because then we were going to have to comply with the law
anyway, and there was no sense in, you know, wasting our time. We put it
in terms of complying with the law.

We took the six points of the bill and divided them in biological science
or physical science because that's the way science usually falls, one or
the other. There were several drafts made of the unit. We would write something
like, for example, if it said "no ancestor to man or ape". Then we'd go
back and say, `No, we are going to take out all negative references whatsoever.'
If "no" is a negative reference, we are going to have to reword this where
it says "separability of man and ape". You know, we tried to make it as
positive an outlook as possible.

In the meantime, I was looking at, reading the books and things like
that, looking for information.

Q: Let me hand you first two documents. One which has been previously
marked for purposes of identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 24,
and another Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 25 for identification and ask you
if you can identify each of those documents?

Q: Can you tell me approximately when in the stage of development of
the unit those happened and why you had these two drafts and why didn't
even settle on these two?

A: I can't give you an exact day, but you mean like this was the first
one and this was the second one?

Q: Yes. Which one was the first one? 24 or 25?

A: Let me look just a second. 24 was the first typed draft, and 25 was
the second one. One of the reasons that we did away with 25 has already
been stated by Mr. Wood. 25 is a more, it's where I took an article and
read it and made an outline of the article itself or what I thought appeared
in the article.

And I did away with that for the fact that that was simply my opinion.
And I didn't want a teacher to not read the article, to read my opinion.
You know, you and could read the same two articles and come up with two
entirely different conclusions. And that was one of the reasons.

I did outline it in detail, too, because I went through a lot of material,
and I needed something on paper that refreshed my memory and told me what
I read because if you read about Australopithecus and Ramapithecus, those
words weren't really in my working vocabulary until then, and I needed
something concrete so that I could refer to it

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, for the record, I'd like to state that
Defendants want to object to this entire line of inquiry on the ground
that it really is premature and speculative.

We came here prepared to try this case on the basis of whether this
Act is constitutional on its face. And the Plaintiffs appear to be trying
to show that's it's going to be unconstitutional as applied, trying to
use this, perhaps, as an example.

And on those grounds, we are not prepared to try that particular issue.
We are here to try it on its face since it is not yet implemented. We would
claim some prejudice and surprise on that ground.

MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, there was clearly full interrogation
in this matter in her deposition. It doesn't go to application either.
It just is another peg in our theory with regard to how it is absolutely
impossible to devise something that is science to conform

Q: All right. I want to elaborate a little bit further about 24 and 25.
As I understand from your testimony, what you did was to take Act 590 and
instead of having six points, you joined two and now had five points. Now,
the evidences that are evident or that appear in the outlines 24 and 25,
how did you get those individual points, and how did they make their way
into the outline? An article, for example, about Australopithecus?

A: Mr. Fisher and I sat down with the material that Mr. Fisher had. Going
through the material, the creationists would cite an evidence to support
a particular point. And in every case, the points that were in the bill
were in all the creationist material, sometimes verbatim. So it was easy
to put them in their right category. And we would list, you know— We would
come up with, you know, ten or twelve.

Q: Now, can you tell me if in your meetings with Mr. Fisher you established
any criteria to which you, at least, attempted to adhere with regard to
how the outline and the material, the supplemental unit on creationism,
was going to be devised?

A: (Continuing) going to support a point, let's find evidence from a
legitimate science article. Let's try to steer away from anything that
was from a creation publisher, and I mean that with a little c , any creation
publisher or any affiliate of. Let's try to, you know, get in our community,
our scientific community.

Q: After you got all of these materials down, all of these evidences
that he gave you, what did you do to attempt to find some scientific community
evidence for every single one of those points? Tell me the process by which
you attempted to do this?

A: I solicited help from, or even some people said they'd help me. For
example, I would ask in the area of biology to meet with biology professors
from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of Central
Arkansas because they were close. No other reason. You know, it was not
feasible to, we didn't have the money and they certainly wouldn't come
down here, so we used local people.

And sat down with biology teachers in biology and sat down with physics
teachers, physics professors in physics, and geology and chemistry.

Mr. Jones and I would sit down with them. We would take the unit and
they would look at the points, and we would ask them— We would tell them
our purpose, and we would

A: (Continuing) ask them, `Now, look, you are not trying to refute the
evidence. You are looking at it through a creationist's point of view.
Can you— Is there any way an inference can be made on this point and hold
water.'

Sometimes they were very helpful. You know, they really tried. Some
of the professors, you know, all but asked us to leave. They just saw no
point in doing this type of thing.

MR. CHILDS: Your Honor, I'd like to object if this evidence is
being offered for the truth as contained therein. We would object on the
basis it was hearsay- As I understand, it's being offered solely to show
the process that this lady went through. If I'm correct in that, I have
no objection.

THE COURT: That's the way I understand it is offered.

MR. KAPLAN: That's right.

A: (Continuing) Say, for example, if there was one of the topics that
had several evidences cited, we would go through each one of them, or they
would for me and say, `Maybe you can support this; maybe you can't', or
`There's no sense wasting your time', or `Yeah, you know, you might could
look through this.' And we would weed them down.

Q: For all the evidences that you had when you went through your first
compilation and you listed all of these evidences after sitting down with
Fisher, were you ever able to find in the case of one single one any documentation
from the scientific community to establish one of those evidences?

A: No.

Q: But you came up with a unit?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, let's go through that unit and see what happens?

THE COURT: Why don't we take about a fifteen minute recess, Mr.
Kaplan.

(Thereupon, Court was in
recess from 3:20 p.m. to
3:40 p.m.)

JUDGE BYRD: Your Honor, it is stipulated that C. A. Hunt's
deposition can be introduced without him signing it and that his exhibits
can be attached to it. He handed them to me and Steve and a verity of them
has to come through that chain. The same goes true for Reverend W. A. Blount.

Now, the witnesses ask that they be furnished a copy of their deposition
so they could look at it in case somebody asks them a question about it.

MR. CEARLEY: We would be happy to furnish copies, your Honor.
And my understanding is that we now have an agreement whereby we can attach
the documents as exhibits to the deposition without authenticating them
by having the witnesses come in again.

JUDGE BYRD: Yes.

MR. CEARLEY: I intend to introduce all of them, two of them with
signatures and two without signatures.

THE COURT: Fine.

JUDGE BYRD: And my witnesses are no longer under subpoena?

THE COURT: No, sir.

MR. CLARK: That's our agreement, your Honor. Of course, we object
to the relevancy of this, but you know our objections.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continuing)

BY MR. KAPLAN:

Q: Ms. Wilson, you were about to begin the identification of the unit
which you finally developed. Let me hand you now what I have previously
marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number 18 for identification and ask you
if you can identify that?

A: It is the unit that I presented to our school board in September,
an outline of our unit on creation.

Q: Let's take a look at 18 The outline itself is now considerably briefer
and in word form as opposed to sentence form, is that correct, or as opposed
to paragraph form?

A: Yes.

Q: And can you tell me why you chose to follow that procedure as opposed
to the full paragraph development that you had previously?

A: Because the full paragraph one was my perception of the articles and
not— Just my opinion.

Q: Now, the material that was in the paragraphs in the earlier forms,
numbers 24 and 25, did they all find themselves into numbers 19 through
23 in some way or at least most of it?

A: The materials that were in the first draft, did they find themselves
into—

Q: Yes.

A: Not all of them.

Q: Let's go over these appendices and see, at least, what you did and
how you yourself felt about them. Handing you now Plaintiffs' Exhibit Number
19. Tell me the source from which you obtained 19, the two 25

A: One of them was from a creation publication. The other one was from
"Science Digest", April 1981.

Q: Now, you told us already that you had said to Mr. Fisher that you
did not want to use any material from one of the creationists publications.
Can you tell me why you violated that self-imposed rule?

A: Because I just simply could not find any other material.

Q: Do you believe in your best judgment that either of those two articles
supports any of the positions with regard to scientific creationism?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Why did you include it?

A: I had to come up with something.

Q: The material from "Science Digest", can you explain to us what that
is and whether it supports any kind of separate ancestry for man and animal?

A: The article is entitled "Ancestors", and the only reason that I came
up with this article was, I was at a particular school — This is not in
answer to your question — and the librarian happened to say, `Aren't you
working on creationism.' Here's an— They found an article with monkeys
on it, So they gave it to me.

A: (Continuing) Okay. But I did read the article. And it is establishing
that there was a separate ancestry for, I believe, that it was not in the
line for Australopithecus.

Q: Tell us again what the assertion of the article is, rather than my
characterizing it?

A: That it was in a separate line of ancestry. It didn't fall in between
man— It wasn't in, like, monkey, the Australopithecus, and then man itself.
Separate.

Q: With regard to Number 20, can you take a look at that?

A: This is Appendix II that evidences, that imply changes only within
fixed limits. And it contains articles on— It contains both articles from
creation publishers. And there is an article from the "Scientific Monthly."

Q: Does the article from "Scientific Monthly" establish in any way or
conclude or lead one to conclude in any way that there was change within
some fixed limits?

A: No. The article in "Scientific Monthly" was simply that the Tuatara,
which is a small reptile, has been around for a long time.

Q: Anything in Appendix II which establishes any proposition in a scientific
manner for separate, for change within fixed limits?

Q: With regard to Number 21, Appendix III, can you tell me what is there?

A: It is the appendix for the young earth and solar system. There is
an article from "Readers Digest" about atomic clocks.

Q: Is "Readers Digest" a science source?

A: No.

Q: Is there anything in that article or any of the other articles in
Appendix III which establish the proposition for, that any of the creationists
seek to establish?

A: The point to establish that there was a young earth, and that's why
the article was written? No.

Q: These articles, are the points of the articles for an entirely purpose?

A: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I want to object on the grounds of
the best evidence rule. I think the articles themselves are the best evidence
of the content. And to try to prove their content or the conclusions by
the testimony of this witness is improper.

A: Because our board told us to come up with a unit. We told them we
could not come up with a science unit.

Q: What is this unit?

A: The intent of the unit was a view of creationism, to present creationism
from a creationist point of view, present evidences to support creationism
from the eyes of a creationist, how they would interpret.

Q: And if it is not science, as you understand it as a science educator,
what is it?

A: It's just a view.

Q: Did you ever meet with Mr. Bliss or Doctor Bliss?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell me how that came about?

A: He was in the Little Rock area or in Arkansas, specifically the Little
Rock area, to conduct some workshops — one in Conway and one in Fort Smith
— on the two model approach.

And because of his information that he knew that we were writing a unit
or we were going to possibly implement a unit on creationism, he came to
us to talk about being a

A: He came and spoke with me personally and with Mr. Jones and with Doctor
Measel. And then he told us that he was having a workshop in Conway at
Central Baptist College, and I did attend his workshop.

Q: Did you do anything with regard to adopting his two model approach?

A: No, because as Mr. Glasgow has already stated, in looking at his method
of presenting the information and one of the scales that he used in his
packet on attitudes, we teach the cognitive process; not attitudes. And
he referred to a creator in his two model approach. And I threw his material
in the trash.

Q: Did you also get material from a man named Sunderland?

A: Yes.

Q: Before I go into the Sunderland material, had you ever had any experience
with a confrontive or two model approach before?

A: One of the books that I looked at that Mr. Fisher had, in particular,
advocated the two concepts, the two model approach to teaching.

Q: Have you ever experienced it before in connection with any instruction
that took place in the science

A: (Continuing) the universe could not have generated itself. It is incapable
of doing so on the basis of the observable scientific law now operating.
Therefore, creation postulates that the universe and all living things
must have been created by a supernatural power external to the universe.
Various organisms, including man, are functionally complete when created."

Q: And the very next paragraph?

A: "The creation model states that the Creator created certain basic
kinds of life which had in their genes the capability to vary and survive
in a changing environment. The original created kinds cannot be precisely
defined just as there is no exact definition of the species."

Q: Read number sixteen.

A: "Keep in mind that the two models are totally of life. Opposite explanations
for the origin of life. Evolution says there has been one continuous development
from a common ancestor. Creation says there is a sudden creation of complete
functional organisms. Both cannot be correct, and the fossil records should
completely agree with one and totally contradict the other. An unbiased
assessment of the fossils should clearly show which model is correct. What
should it show in each case?"

Q: (Continuing) educational experience, have you ever come across any
kind of teaching technique that asks students to make this kind of decision
as to something being right or something being wrong?

A: No, not in science.

Q: How long would it take to— Strike that.

THE COURT: May I ask a question? Were they proposing that these
materials be used in public schools? Was there any disclaimer associated
with them?

THE WITNESS: From Mr. Sunderland?

THE COURT: Or Doctor Bliss?

THE WITNESS: No, Doctor Bliss, I mean he wanted to conduct an
in-service for our teachers. That was his purpose in meeting with me.

He, in fact, told me how much it would be to have him come to our school
district. And, you know, he was looking at the calendar as to what days
he could— You know, we have teachers report on a certain day, and when
he could meet.

And Sunderland, there was no disclaimer at all. You know, it was anybody
and everybody could purchase it.

THE COURT: Who is Sunderland associated with?

MR. KAPLAN: He, apparently, is a single individual in Apalachin,
New York.

Q: Were you able to find any materials at all in your investigation and
preparation for the unit that you developed that supported in a scientific
manner any proposition advanced by the creation science position?

A: No.

Q: Were you able to find any materials that were devoid of religious
references or religious background

A: No.

Q: in your view, were you able in the science, in the unit, rather, that
you did develop, to divorce from that unit references to religion?

A: No.

MR. KAPLAN: That's all.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. CLARK:

Ms. Wilson, I don't have but just a few questions.

Q: You do believe the State has the right to prescribe curriculum for
the public schools?

A: A person who disseminates or facilitates scientific information from
the scientific community.

Q: Can a science educator evaluate science?

A: In terms of its educational purpose, yes.

Q: In compiling the unit that your compiled, did you discard any materials
because you could not understand them?

A: No. I had to have some help sometimes in understanding them, yes.
But the sole reason to discard them was that I couldn't understand them,
no.

Q: Do you remember in your deposition a response to a question about
Exhibit Number 5—

A: Pleochroic Haloes?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes.

Q: Did you discard that because you couldn't understand it?

A: I'd never heard of it. I think I stated that in my deposition it was
given to me as an evidence. And I believe that one of the scientists testified
he didn't call them, I don't think he used the term "pleochroic haloes",
but he was talking about polonium and the haloes that they radiated on
their breakdown. In my evidence they called it "pleochroic haloes." I am

A: (Continuing) a chemistry teacher or was a chemistry teacher. And in
my training I had never heard of it. I asked other chemistry teachers what
was a pleochroic halo. I asked Mr. Fisher what was a pleochroic halo. He
Had supplied me with the evidence.

I asked college chemistry teachers what was a pleochroic halo. Am I
to expect a home economics teacher to understand this concept?

I had to go back, and Mr. Fisher did, I asked him to find the article
that he used this reference from. And he brought it to me and I read it.
And I discarded it on the basis that if I had to go through all that trouble
to figure it out, think what trouble it would create in a classroom, especially
in an eighth grade classroom where we are dealing with thirteen year olds
that barely understand the concept of what an atom is.

Q: I appreciate your explanation, but the question remains the same.
Did you throw it out because you didn't understand it?

A: I understand what it is, yes. No, I didn't throw it out because I
did not understand it.

Q: Then you do understand what pleochroic haloes are?

A: Yes.

Q: So you did not discard the material because you did not understand
it?

Q: Do you recall in your deposition when you were asked about nuclides
of uranium, "We threw that one out, I think." "Why did you throw it out?"
"Well, one reason—

A: Could you tell me what page your reading from, please?

Q: Yes. I'm reading from page 49, beginning at line 20. Actually beginning
with the question, line 17. "In Exhibit 5 to Fisher's deposition, under
Roman numeral I, he talks about—" It reads on to say, "nuclides of uranium."

"We threw that out, I think." Question, "Why did you throw it out?"
Answer, "One reason— May I see what you are talking about?" Question, "Sure.
Right there." Answer, "What did you say?" Question, "First paragraph-"
Answer, "It was a piece of literature that was— It talked about pleochroic
haloes. We couldn't find anybody that knew what pleochroic haloes were.
That's one reason we threw it out. I thought that was a pretty good reason."

Now, did you throw it out because you didn't know what it was?

A: I think you are taking that out of context. As I explained, I couldn't
find anybody—

Q: (Continuing) Was one of the things that you all set out to do was
prepare a statement of academic responsibility to be adopted by the Pulaski
County Special School District?

A: Yes. That was one of our primary purposes.

Q: And in that statement on academic responsibility, is there any indication
that both sides of issues should be heard in the classroom?

A: I would like to see a copy of it. I mean, I was involved in writing
it, but it's—

MR. CHILDS: I will have to ask plaintiffs' counsel for a copy.

THE WITNESS: And your question again, please?

MR. CHILDS: (Continuing)

Q: Is there anything in that statement on academic responsibility which
was adopted by the Pulaski County Special District which indicated that
both sides of issues should be presented in the classroom?

A: I suppose you could give that interpretation of sorts to number seven.

Q: Now, then, in that statement on academic responsibility, does the
board delegate to the administration and teachers the duty to implement
all policies adopted by the board?

A: The board establishes policies, and the administrative staff and teachers
implement policies.